Gus Sacks

300 a day would seem appropriate, but it all depends, of course.

I'm not hijacking the thread but merely suggesting that documentaries need not be limited to 24 fps unless one is going to go film out. In the past documentaries were filmed in 60i. Also I have no bias towards 48 fps unless one intends to go with 2K digital projection which is also easily convertable to 24 fps 35mm film out.

You must be delusional. I've read countless threads where you go on and on about 48 fps projection. You've already had threads on it, and it's getting tiresome to hop around your inane contributions to threads that really don't have anything to do with your subject matter. Please stop. I think this healthy discussion was enough to last you a while, wasn't it?

This does 24 fps? Any other frame rates?

Thanks for trying Tim, but I don't think I do understand. :D

I'll try and read your post again, haha.

They don't make an adapter to use PL mount lenses on cameras with Arri mounts. Tim said it fairly simply already. These lenses are Arri but have a PL adapter. You could use them on a camera with an Arri mount without an adapter.

Those producers need to write a book. Then that book has to be thrust into the hands of every indie producer in LA.

Haha, yeah. We'll see. It's a pretty stripped down comedy. New York - lots of shooting in Greenpoint in particular. In September - maybe I'll keep a log or whatever.

When the film screens let us know what the final budget was.

Yeah, I think 30 was their production budget. I don't know what they've planned for post, but I'm assuming they'll need to fundraise a little more after it's in the can. Post production nightmare.

Woah! 6100 is wayyy too expensive.

Arriflex 16mm BL Camera For Sale

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=280363326578

 

Any questions feel free to ask..

 

Email:

joshuamontez@gmail.com

Sent one (a few) back. Thanks, Tim.

Email sent. Let me know if you have any other questions.

 

Best,

-Tim

Sent you an email, Tim.

I'm doing a roughly $30,000 feature later this year. We're shooting two 6-day weeks, and my boys/girls and I are being paid standard low budget rates. It certainly can be done.

The new film is called GOING THE DISTANCE, directed by Nanette Burstein. Leave for NY next week. Can't wait to work with her. Don't know how easy it will be to do a production blog but I will see if I can share some experiences.

That's really cool, Eric. She co-owns a great restaurant in Chelsea. I'm sure you'll make a stop in there at some point :) Best of luck on the new project.

Apparently they had crew on either side of the action with high-powered flashlights going right into anamorphic lenses.

I've been looking for a set on the East Coast with very little luck.

I'm sure there are a couple of 2,400-foot (720m) mags out there that would let you shoot 66 minutes continuously at 24fps.

 

If someone were to make a 3,000-foot (1000m) mag that'd be good for 82 minutes or so. . .

Could shoot 2-perf and make it happen ;)

Unrelated, but where could one find a copy of that sweet poster with the Camera Assistants mimicking the Flag pose?

... nice package, also :)

I really dig the look you went for. Even though she was not the most engaging performer, and perhaps the concept for the video might not have been the best choice (not your fault).

The look they went for, as per the still, is no good.

But I liked your work on the video that took place in the laundry, and the one with the blues singer in the loft space. Don't hang it up yet. Some music videos just aren't thrown together by the production company as seriously as others.

The point that I am making is that clearly, current top notch cine lenses are more than adequate for this type of work, as far as I am concerned. Personally, I would like to see glass that is not so sharp for this type of narrative film making.

I'm very satisfied with how a set of Cookes looked on a recent RED short :)

At T2.9?

Yeah, I've done the few apples and a high hat with some straps. Also, saw on Sex and the City: The Movie, they took out the back seat of the sedan and then were able to really spread out.

You can just do it in Final Cut Pro.

Use Quicktime Conversion, an H264 codec, and set your bitrate to like 6000-8000. You can set your 'Size' to x by 720, and there, technically, you should have HD.

"The Perfect Sleep" has begun it's week-long engagement at the Quad Cinema in NYC.

 

http://www.quadcinema.com/#490

I'll try and check it out if I can grab a free minute.

I'm starting to work more than ever now.

Anyone else picking up the small wave?

Why couldn't he see? Were you rolling the lens way out of focus before you rolled or blocking him from putting his eye on the viewfinder? If you were, then he had a valid complaint. It's not anal retentive to want to be able to see an image before you roll the camera.

Also, what did he want you to "eyeball"? If he wanted you to eyeball a wide shot on an 18mm at T8, or a similar type of shot, and you were constantly fiddling with the focus then, again, he was right.

Maybe my assumptions are incorrect....please explain what you meant.

I'm assuming it was a situation where they slated, and he was slow in rolling the focus back to correct, or he was taking lens eye marks and it wasn't in the correct plane of focus for him. But, being there was no follow focus, and ripping on a lens barrel on a camera with a silly loose lens mount sometimes, I wouldn't want to be pulling focus quickly either. And there's a nice way to say things sometimes, isnt there?

Yeah, Abel actually has it listed and rents it now.

The only problem I had was working with such an anal retentive camera operator telling me to "just eyeball it" when I was checking the marks on the lens barrel and relentlessly complaining that he could not see when I was pulling focus before rolling.

Now THAT is annoying. WOW!

Yeah, that seems pretty useless and quite a trivial exercise. What school is this?